You really think they would just eat that tax. By your logic, wouldn't they just pass the windfall tax right onto us too? Of course they would. So again, how does that lower the price of gas for consumers? By the way, we've already done this windfall tax thing........remember the 70's and gas shortages? Worked out well that time, let's do that again. That's why the Congress hasn't already enacted it. They know it's BS and just a threat for TV.
Explain that to me. If they assessed a 50% windfall tax, wouldn't they still come out of ahead with those so-called inflated profits? Seems like the only winner would be the government ... more tax money to waste.
Losers always resort to insults, somehow. It gives oil companies incentives to keep prices lower than the point where windfall taxes kick in. Nonsense, there are other ways, some being investigated by congress. No gasoline taxes == no roads, is that what you are proposing. No, never mind, you are through with us commies.
Like what? Price controls? You guys are lost if you think no taxes on gas would equal bad roads. We already have bad roads. I knew you wouldn't be against taxes. Figures. Seems everything you have suggested has already been tried behind the Great Wall Red. That why you call yourself Red?
again i think we should also remember that preventing gas prices to go as high as they want also stifles innovation by drastically reducing the motivation for investment in alernatives, as well as remiding prospective alternative energy source developers that if they do risk their capital by investing in energy, that the government may cap their profits if they find them to be excessive. we shouldnt screw with profits, they are the reason people provide services to us in the first place. in this case high oil profits drive people to alternatives, which could save our precious and fragile planet.
gas is elastic, it just is less elastic than other things, and it takes more time for changes to happen. if prices went up enough, we would certainly take steps like carpooling and hybrid cars and such. people might move closer to their workplaces or be more careful when considering how they travel. alternatives do exist, and better ones will exist if we allow them to. but part of the problem is that there is no problem. most of us can pretty easily afford to drive all we need, so alternatives are slow in coming.
You are only considering the impact for an individual, and you are also only considering driving. My job requires me to fly. Where do you think the extra cost of plane tickets is comeing from? Probably my bonus pool. Which means I make less money. Retailers do not have the luxury to change their distribution channels quickly. They don't absorb the higher prices of moving product so we pay for it there too. No matter what we do personally to buy less gas we still pay for it somewhere. That is why I say it is inelastic.
Well, what do you think pays for roads. The fairy godmother? How naive can you get? States that tax gasoline for road use have better roads than states who do not. It's a matter of balance. And I repeat no taxes = no roads. Only the Bush administration and it's apologists spend money that they don't have. I thought you were finished.
Then why are the companies creating huge packages for their executives instead of building more refining capacity? They keep saying that they don't have the capacity to make enough gasoline during peak demand times and they can't make enough heating fuel during its winter peak either. Yet there has not been a single new refinery built in this country in 30 years during a period when we dropped the total number of refineries to 149, less than half the number operating in 1981. They are not using the excess profits to fix the problem. They are lining their pockets instead. Exxon's Lee Raymond made $144,573 per day as CEO.
